Forestluv

I’m ok with decriminalizing all drugs, yet I think legalization of certain hard drugs goes too far. Allowing legal consumption, marketing, sellIng and profiting off of drugs like methamphetamine wouldn’t be good for society, imo. It’s not just the harmful impact to the individual, there is a huge social harm with meth. I’d be for decriminalizing meth, yet not legalizing it.

I like to do a 50:50 mix of 4-Aco-Dmt and 4-Ho-met to take the edge off.

An interesting twist. For hundreds of years, very light skinned black people would often try to ‘pass’ as being white. I’ve seen documentaries in which a light skinned black person leaves their family, marries a white person and creates an entire backstory why s/he has no family contact. And then one of the descendants finds out years later. I can see the motivation historically since a person could escape the effects of racism. . . It’s interesting to see it occur in the opposite direction. I’ve seen lots of falsely people claim partial heritage - like falsely claiming they are 1/8 American Indian. Yet I hadn’t seen cases of full on identification. The cases of trying to pass for a minority seem to occur more often in University that are green - there may be some benefits and cred. they seek. I doubt many people would try to pass for a minority in other environments, like an insurance salesman.

Forced Marriage is a form of rape, it’s just one step away and allows some distancing from the actual rape. If a women is forced to marry and have sex with a man against her will, that is a form of rape. Euphemizing the rape as “forced marraige” allows for some emotional distancing and justification of the rape.

She is really good at perspective jumping in this video. She goes into various psyches and pulls insights to a meta view where she makes connections. I also like how she is unpredictable and has dark humor.

@Giulio Bevilacqua If you resonate with music, you can deepen and expand with it, rather than stay with the same old. I’m in the sciences and there came a point in my development I lost interest. Science seemed so limited and unsatisfying. Yet then I expanded it to systematic levels by integrating art, psychology, anthropology, psychedelics, history etc. That spiced it up.

There is the issue of who/what counts as “enlightened“ and who/what gets to define it. Where / what is “there”? If a person hasn’t been “there” and hasn’t realized “there” how can they determine who has been “there” and who is an authority on what “there” is? Perhaps there = here!

@Red-White-Light Nice ? ?

Digging sand and creating sandcastles can be lots of fun ? ?

If I realize a beach and then say “this grain of sand is beachier than that grain of sand”, am I missing something? If I say “each grain of sand is equivalent beachiness”, am I missing something? If I say “my perception of beachness is the totality of beachness”, am I missing something? As soon as I become a grain of sand, I am missing something because as a grain of sand I am no longer other grains of sand.

Looks like Frank got a good look at the tail of the Ox, yet now believes the Ox’s tail is the Ox.

Responsibility and blame are inter-related. The term blame has a different connotation because it suggests one is avoiding taking personal responsibility. I see it as an interplay. For example, if someone breaks into my home, shoots me and I become paralyzed - I will have a new set of problems in life. In one context, I can create problems. I could have a mentality that I am a victim, I can no longer be productive in life and blame all my problems on the shooter. I could avoid taking any personal responsibility for my own mindset. Another mindset would be that I have a new productive role in life. Perhaps I can be a motivational speaker. Perhaps I can become an advocate for those with disabilities. Yet in another context, if I get shot and paralyzed by a burglar, I am also a victim of this crime. The new set of problems in my life due to hospital bills, inability to work, rehabilitation, PTSD, therapy, mental anguish etc. are due to the burglar shooting me. It’s not fair to place all the responsibility on the paralyzed person and not place any responsibility upon the shooter for the harm he caused. I see it is a combination. There is both internal and external causation that is inter-connected. In SD terms, this is the integration of Orange and Green. There is also the issue if there is personal free will in making choices. Most discussions about personal responsibility have the assumption of personal free will. That has practical value in society, yet it is an assumption that restricts from further investigation.

As repeatedly stated: If you wish to hold conservative views, that is okay, but you must articulate them with some intelligence and nuance, not as dogma or some reactionary FoxNews talking points.

According to his CV, Patton describes himself as “an expert in communication, interpersonal and leadership effectiveness”. How ironic.

Part of his stage red expression

I think it’s fair to say it is politically motivated and perhaps disingenuous. Yet I don’t think it’s fair to say it is a “political smear”. These are Trump’s own comments he has made on record or verified by multiple sources. And Trump’s attitude about the military is a legit political issue for a lot of people. It’s not like they are making up a story about him. And also consider proportionality. Yes Biden’s team is playing politically motivated games, yet brining up Trump’s own comments for 2018 is far less severe than the games Trump is playing - such as trying to undercut mail-in-voting, encouraging his supporters to vote twice etc. That is far more severe since it undermines democracy itself.

1960s conservative position: Marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race. 1960s liberal position: Marriage is between a man and a woman of any race. 2000s conservative position: Marriage is between a man and a woman of any race. 2000s liberal position: Marriage is between two adult humans of any sex or gender. 2100s conservative position: Marriage is between two adult humans of any sex of gender. 2100s liberal position: Marriage is between two conscious entities, including humans and androids. 2200s conservative position: Marriage is between two conscious entities, including humans and androids. 2200s liberal position: Marriage is between dynamic states of integrated consciousness within one holistic consciousness.

A grandiose depiction of Red Emperor Cortes conquering and indigenous tribe:

I suppose this could help Biden win and reduce an immediate threat, yet this is a huge red flag about toxic corporate plutocracy. Biden his receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from billionaires and corporate plutocrats. That money ain’t free. They will have power over him and his administration. A lot of people are under the impression that we can “go back to normal” under Biden, yet there are still serious problems with toxic neoliberalism and the fight doesn’t stop in November. I was encouraged to see AOC come out hard against Joe Kennedy III and Pelosi - that is a sign that they will continue to fight hard against neoliberalism if Biden wins.

Imagine what might influence someone to destroy things verbally and physically. Imagine someone who has been abused and silenced. Can you see how they might lash out? In my view, it is not the destroying things and physical harm that is higher consciousness. I don’t know anyone who is saying that. Rather, I would consider someone like Cornel West at a relatively high level of consciousness. He is aware of inequalities and injustices. He can see nuances about personal responsibility and corrupt systemic problems. He can see racial biases, yet can also see how poor white people are also getting screwed over in a corrupt plutocracy of extreme wealth inequality. Not everyone speaking out against inequalities and injustices is doing so by destroying things. I’m speaking out against inequalities and injustices - and I haven’t destroyed a single thing.

I think you make some good points and I agree that personal responsibility is an important factor, yet it is one factor. I also think you are minimizing other contributing factors and aren’t acknowledging serious systemic problems. We may give different meanings to the idea of integrity. For me, integrity includes taking responsibility for one’s actions and integrity is also acknowledging and speaking out against inequalities and injustices - even when one is not negatively impacted by those inequalities and injustices. And I’m impressed by the amount of personal responsibility you took. When I was younger, I spent brief periods on jail and had severe alcoholic issues to the point it almost killed me. It was extremely difficult to look at myself and take responsibility for my actions and to stop blaming others. Yet I can also see environmental inputs. Imagine a child that grows up in poverty, is severely abused, has PTSD, serious psychological Issues and no resources for help in his community. What if this damaged person lashes out his trauma? At what point does our compassion for him end? On his 18th birthday? If he lashes out against another during a PTSD episode? Can we simply just tell him “Take responsibility for your actions?”. Or should we also look at the bigger picture of what type of society we have, if we have resources to help those in need, if wealth inequality allows tens of millions of people to suffer while 20 mega billionaires blow coke with hookers on their yacht - paid for by taxpayer money. To me, personal responsibility is just one piece of the larger puzzle. I would also say their is a range of personal responsibility. During the opioid crisis, pharmaceutical CEOs intentionally tried to get as many people as possible addicted to opioids to increase profits. They manipulated doctors to push drugs. A lot of people trust their doctors and were very vulnerable. Millions of people become addicted and suffered terribly. Do we place 100% responsibility on the individual and place 0% responsibility on the pharmaceutical CEOs? Similarly during the housing crisis: Banking criminals created toxic loans that intentionally sent people into bankruptcy and the Banking criminals shorted those loans and made billions of dollars as hundreds of thousands of people lost their homes. These loans were intentionally written in highly technical terms that the average person didn’t fully understand and they trusted their real estate agent. Do we place 100% responsibility to the individual and turn a blind eye to the corrupt Bankers?

I did not say laws and order has no value in a society and I am not suggesting that a lawless society is superior. It is context dependent. Throughout history there have been unjust laws and protests. The suffrage movement protested the unjust law that women cannot vote. However, there are also laws that have value for societies. And there are issues of whether laws are being fairly enforced and accountability. That is not what I mean by taking a meta view from an Ivory Tower. An example would be an academic that lives in comfort and security. He has the luxury of viewing things systemically. If we put that academic in the forests of Columbia where he is threatened by bandits and mafia, it would be much harder for him to view things in the bigger picture since he would be pre-occupied with survival. Yet having financial stability is insufficient. Someone could be raised in financially stable environment yet conditioned to believe in white supremacy. They could be be a frustrated incel bullied at school and become involved in a gang or online white supremacy group, which contributes to unhealthy expressions of violence. This of course would not be considered a higher consciousness in most models. A better example would be someone raised in an environment in which the “other” was not demonized and not seen as a threat. Rather, an environment in which various perspectives are considered. Perhaps this person has traveled and had many discussions with people from different walks of life. In doing so, they have a better understanding of where people are coming from and can see inequalities and injustices. Consider a white person that temporarily lives in a predominately black poor urban area and sees firsthand the biased injustices and can see how policing and the justice system cannot be fully trusted by some people. Or a white person that gets into a relationship with a black person and becomes aware of racism because they are now experiencing it and observing it. It now becomes undeniable. To me, you seem to be demonizing the movement broadly as “rioters, Antifa, terrorists, violent” etc and don’t seem open to acknowledging and considering legitimate inequalities and injustices that underly and drive the social unrest. How could we have a discussion about the causes of climate change and possible solutions with someone that denies climate change exists and thinks all environmentalists are dangerous terrorists?

In theoretical terms of consciousness evolution, I would not place riots themselves at a high level - yet I can see the underlying causes that drive them. I would put protestors able to see underlying inequalities / injustices in society and are protesting for a more equal / just society of inclusion and diversity to be at a relatively high conscious level by today’s standards. Those that have a binary “law and order” and “us vs them” mindset that want to use force to inhibit addressing those underlying issues would be at a relatively lower conscious level, imo. A level higher consciousness can see systemically how a history of systemic racism, corporate plutocracy, exploitation, corruption, wealth inequality, disproportionate power dynamics, biased judicial systems, biased laws / enforcement / accountability and barriers to social advancement are all underlying and contributing to the social conflict seen today. Yet it’s easier to take a systemic meta view when one is in an ivory tower. It’s much more difficult to see when one is immersed within those dynamics and fighting for their survival.

And also both real and not real. And either real or not real. A coin can be either heads or tails. A coin can be neither heads nor tails. A coin can be both heads and tails. The mind creates distinctions.